Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago
Did they give a rationale for dinging the graveyard shifter?
|
Just general ones. I've seen stats like %60 less drivers yet %40 of fatal accidents happen at that time, and speculation about various causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago
I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I can't figure it out. I would have thought that actual accident history would have made one much more likely to be dinged.
|
I may have to reconsider my position there. On the one hand if the system is so fine tuned that only the people who cause accidents pay for all the insurance ahead of time (plus salaries and bonuses) then it isn't really insurance anymore, so trying to nail down all the parameters and determine who pays more and who pays less is a bit of folly. But I don't drive very much and can understand that my chances of getting in a claim are reduced as a result, not linearly, but less.
So what is the right answer, what is the balance between averaging costs within the group and rewarding or punishing those who are above or below average with changes in fee structure?
I am leaning towards past performance, and the rationale is that the driver is the most important piece of safety equipment (and you can use past performance without having your driving micro-managed by the insurance company)